What dates are accepted for the age of the Sun?

[Robittybob1]

All of your objections will make up for just around 1 order of magnitude. In my calculation I've jammed all the dust into a volume thousands of times smaller than the actual volume where material was distributed so in reality it will still be very tiny concentration, much lower that what I've shown with the simple calculation.

 

 

No it doesn't. Again it talks about protoplanetary disks viewed from outside. And it's true, they are not transparent in visible light at least, more so in infra-red.

You have a point and I'm not sure of the answer where sites say the disk is opaque to light and you say it isn't. Your particles could be millions of times too big. I don't know and I can't keep on just guessing the answers. If the particles were in the size of microns rather than mm^3 that is more than a million times smaller in size reduction isn't it?

I want to complete the math of the DDE before I take on too many other topics.

 

We were talking about the radiation coming from the PMS Sun at 5,500 K - light not heat. It is this light that can't penetrate the dust disk. You must agree with that.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Robittybob1

[pavelcherepan]

 

It is this light that can't penetrate the dust disk.

 

I agree with an addendum: It is this light that can't penetrate the dust disk as viewed by an external observer and only in visible part of spectrum.

[Robittybob1]

 

I agree with an addendum: It is this light that can't penetrate the dust disk as viewed by an external observer and only in visible part of spectrum.

OK it's late here. Do you think this light can drive the dust back into denser regions to cause planetesimal to accrete and later planet formation by self gravitation?

That other paper emphasised the turbulence in the dust disk, whereas I propose the Sun uses this light energised by the DDE (possibly) in a much more orderly fashion forming a series of tori and each torus forming a planet or several minor planets which later combine.

This happens in the PMS phase of Sun development before the Lithium burn. I'm finally getting to know the phases better but there's still so much to learn.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Mordred]

Thanks if you understand it you might be able to teach me a bit and we will advance the idea in doing so. I never thought we were attempting to model a nebula! What made you think that far ahead in a thread on formation of the Sun?

 

 

When asked what your goal was your response was

 

 

Timing planetesimal and planet formation and the timing of the clearing of the dust disk from the inner parts of the Solar System. What was the role of the Sun in doing this.

Also defining the extent of the habitable zone.

 

If we get time maybe we should look at your ideas on nebula collapse.

 

 

Now how to you plan to accomplish this without understanding the metrics involved describing the accretion disk?

 

here is a list of some of the formulas involved.

 

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~astolte/StarFormation/Lecture2012_PMS.pdf

 

how many of these do you understand?

Edited February 22, 2016 by Mordred

[Robittybob1]

 

When asked what your goal was your response was

 

 

 

Now how to you plan to accomplish this without understanding the metrics involved describing the accretion disk?

 

here is a list of some of the formulas involved.

 

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~astolte/StarFormation/Lecture2012_PMS.pdf

 

how many of these do you understand?

As I said yesterday I would enter the formulas into a excel sheet and apply some values and get the feel of how the formula behaves, then I begin to understand it. If I just look at a complex formula my mind goes numb otherwise.

[Mordred]

Okay well the excel sheet is handy to get the feeling for the numbers. It doesn't particularly lead to understanding what those numbers mean.

 

Nevertheless, as a lot of your posts are directly related to T Taurie stage. I would like to know what view you have on the accretion disk itself.

 

A) the accretion disk increases in density right up to the protostar?

 

B) or are you looking at a seperation via magnetosphere accretion theory.?

 

The reason I ask this is for the luminosity functions.

 

Now I assume your aware the inner accretion disk has a higher angular velocity than the outer disk. Also the mass density and temperature will follow a gradient.

 

Ie no open regions. (Unless you count case b.)

 

So taking that into consideration "How would you apply DDE ?"

 

As Luminosity has a mass to luminosity relation

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93luminosity_relation

 

It also has luminosity to wavelength relations that depend upon its spectral index.

 

If the mass density follows a curve then the luminosity will as well (assuming same spectral index)

 

If you think about this how can you apply the Poynting vector or DDE metrics without determining the nebula dynamics?

Edited February 22, 2016 by Mordred

[Robittybob1]

Okay well the excel sheet is handy to get the feeling for the numbers. It doesn't particularly lead to understanding what those numbers mean.

 

Nevertheless, as a lot of your posts are directly related to T Taurie stage. I would like to know what view you have on the accretion disk itself.

 

A) the accretion disk increases in density right up to the protostar?

 

B) or are you looking at a seperation via magnetosphere accretion theory.?

 

The reason I ask this is for the luminosity functions.

 

Now I assume your aware the inner accretion disk has a higher angular velocity than the outer disk. Also the mass density and temperature will follow a gradient.

 

Ie no open regions. (Unless you count case b.)

 

So taking that into consideration "How would you apply DDE ?"

 

As Luminosity has a mass to luminosity relation

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93luminosity_relation

 

It also has luminosity to wavelength relations that depend upon its spectral index.

The problem is understanding a question. I read those questions and half of them I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

So we need to go slower to make sure we are speaking the same language. I suppose that is the benefit of maths, it speaks all languages.

"A) the accretion disk increases in density right up to the protostar?" So we had Nebula turning into a protostar, before it became a PMS star. Right agree? So I would say it increases in density all along that chain to the point of planet formation. That is the ultimate density.

Then it clears for some reason.

"B) or are you looking at a separation via magnetosphere accretion theory.?" I have been looking for the reason the disk separates from the protostar. In this thread I have considered the action of the neutrinos once the deuterium fusion occurs, does that reaction produce energetic neutrinos, also simply the internal DDE effect (a new word) for the material has a high angular momentum from the orbital nature it doesn't need much force to push it back and thin it. I'm open to need ideas for the separation. IDK.

 

"So taking that into consideration "How would you apply DDE ?"" The PMS star (contracting down from the protostar, contracting down from the nebula, has a continuous size reduction and it is hard to say what size it is at what time, but it reduces to a minimum and then gradually expands during the MS stages.

So the angles at which the DDE can be applied from vary quite a lot too. When did the protostar start producing radiation that would drive dust (DDE) to slow its free fall into the Sun? IMO it could have been from quite an early stage.

[Mordred]

.

"A) the accretion disk increases in density right up to the protostar?" So we had Nebula turning into a protostar, before it became a PMS star. Right agree? So I would say it increases in density all along that chain to the point of planet formation. That is the ultimate density.

Then it clears for some reason.

"B) or are you looking at a separation via magnetosphere accretion theory.?" I have been looking for the reason the disk separates from the protostar. In this thread I have considered the action of the neutrinos once the deuterium fusion occurs, does that reaction produce energetic neutrinos, also simply the internal DDE effect (a new word) for the material has a high angular momentum from the orbital nature it doesn't need much force to push it back and thin it. I'm open to need ideas for the separation. IDK.

 

"So taking that into consideration "How would you apply DDE ?"" The PMS star (contracting down from the protostar, contracting down from the nebula, has a continuous size reduction and it is hard to say what size it is at what time, but it reduces to a minimum and then gradually expands during the MS stages.

So the angles at which the DDE can be applied from vary quite a lot too. When did the protostar start producing radiation that would drive dust (DDE) to slow its free fall into the Sun? IMO it could have been from quite an early stage.

 

 

Not in argument with this reply but its handy for me to note in order to dig up the right metrics to show you...

 

by the way option B is more agreed upon currently afiak. So this is one model for seperation to address eventually. At one time it as felt the density increased right up to the protostar. However later views and research now support magnetosphere seperation. How early this occurs will take some research. The other factor is heat convection.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Mordred

[Robittybob1]

 

 

Not in argument with this reply but its handy for me to note in order to dig up the right metrics to show you...

 

by the way option B is more agreed upon currently afiak. So this is one model for seperation to address eventually. At one time it as felt the density increased right up to the protostar. However later views and research now support magnetosphere seperation. How early this occurs will take some research. The other factor is heat convection.

How about tackling the causes of separation now rather than later? Magnetosphere induced separation I could accept but I was surprised by the term "heat convection", so how does that work?

So how do you think it worked? it is the separation of the dust disk from the PMS sun so that the two spin independently, it allows the PMS Sun to increase it angular rotation rate but that only happens if the heat generated by the gravitational collapse is able to escape. Will IR radiation cause DDE like visible light can? Can the dust be driven back by heat radiation?

 

Do you know the scientific term for the separation of the dust disk from the PMS sun?

Imagine if the region of the Solar System where Mercury is the planetesimals started to form a planet (The unbalanced mass would cause an offset in the gravitational pull on the material within the protostar). This would cause the protostar to have a tidal bulge but the protosun matter forming the bulge is rotating faster than the matter forming into the planet Mercury. Proto-Mercury is gravitationally accelerated and drifts outward taking the dust from the region with it. Transfer of momentum to the first protoplanet means less momentum within the material in the protosun bulge, this allows it to fall gravitationally inward.

The combined effect is a thinning of the inner region of the forming solar system, the thinning commences and finally a gap appears. The protosun has started the transition to a PMS Sun.

Each protoplanet allows the DDE and tidal acceleration effects to be transferred to the next region further out. This way the planets form in a chain reaction one after the other in the face of an ever decreasing sized protosun while converting to the PMS Sun. So there are different influences as time progresses and not all the planets are made the same.

Well there is an original idea of sound physics so I present this as a possibility.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

I can recommend this recent documentary "Birth of the Solar System [Full - HD 720p]" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxTgyc8RbUI

It is well researched and poses a real challenge to any alternative planet forming process that I might have advocated.

It is the space missions and their results which sometimes yield the biggest challenges to the current theory. For that can be evidence we all can't explain.

There is one thing about the current theory that seems unresolved to me and that is the clearing of the dust from the inner solar system. With the dust in place it could have been much colder closer in. The frost line closer in. The planets forming under much colder conditions.

Secondly I can't accept that Jupiter as a formed planet would act as an effective vacuum cleaner of the dust and gas.

Thirdly I don't accept the gas giant planets migrated (as much as they say).

 

OK they need them to migrate in order to pick up the mass they could not have gained from their current positions. So it is not necessary to migrate them, why not just change the method of how they picked up their mass?

 

We need another Kepler Mission or another Hubble to really see forming stars and their gas disks in more detail. But each one will just be a snapshot in one point in time. It will still help even though it will be hard to say what was the before and after of that snapshot.

 

The project feels enormous ... I'm exhausted.

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

With the dust in place it could have been much colder closer in. The frost line closer in. The planets forming under much colder conditions.

 

Wild guesses. Prove that it could've happened.

 

 

Secondly I can't accept that Jupiter as a formed planet would act as an effective vacuum cleaner of the dust and gas.

 

As I said before it really doesn't matter what you believe and what you don't. Prove it. Also an interesting point is that Jupiter most likely was the first planet to form to completion. Models show that formation of Jupiter could have taken just up to 1 million years while terrestrial planets took tens of million years to accrete.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103588901339

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v402/n6759/abs/402269a0.html

 

 

Thirdly I don't accept the gas giant planets migrated (as much as they say).

 

Again, what you believe is irrelevant. If you have skills and knowledge to disprove Nice/Nice II models, give it a shot.

 

 

 

OK they need them to migrate in order to pick up the mass they could not have gained from their current positions. So it is not necessary to migrate them, why not just change the method of how they picked up their mass?

 

No. It's not the reason they are thought to have migrated. By the time of migration Jupiter and Saturn are thought to have fully formed. It was well after protoplanetary disk was mostly cleared. Nice model shows that such a migration can explain Late Heavy Bombardment, formation of Kuiper belt and Oort clod.

 

 

 

There is one thing about the current theory that seems unresolved to me and that is the clearing of the dust from the inner solar system.

 

Citation needed to show that clearing of dust is an unresolved mystery.

[Robittybob1]

 

Wild guesses. Prove that it could've happened.

 

 

As I said before it really doesn't matter what you believe and what you don't. Prove it. Also an interesting point is that Jupiter most likely was the first planet to form to completion. Models show that formation of Jupiter could have taken just up to 1 million years while terrestrial planets took tens of million years to accrete.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103588901339

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v402/n6759/abs/402269a0.html

 

 

Again, what you believe is irrelevant. If you have skills and knowledge to disprove Nice/Nice II models, give it a shot.

 

 

No. It's not the reason they are thought to have migrated. By the time of migration Jupiter and Saturn are thought to have fully formed. It was well after protoplanetary disk was mostly cleared. Nice model shows that such a migration can explain Late Heavy Bombardment, formation of Kuiper belt and Oort clod.

 

 

Citation needed to show that clearing of dust is an unresolved mystery.

It is an unresolved mystery to me. Not to someone else, just to me, but even in this thread we have begun to show another major effect the DDE. What I believe is important otherwise I would not go to this bother of trying to show an alternative.

I need a little break, I'm tired. Don't worry I'll be back.

What one thing that would put doubts about the Nice II model in your mind? What is one crucial aspect in your opinion?

Edited February 23, 2016 by Robittybob1

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

we have begun to show another major effect the DDE.

 

I'd phrase it differently: "In this thread Robittybob1 has gone mad and decided that DDE has major effects on dust clearing"

 

 

 

What one thing that would put doubts about the Nice II model in your mind? What is one crucial aspect in your opinion?

 

You can try and prove that methodology and simulations are incorrect or find some actual recorded scientific fact that doesn't fit in the model. Below are links to research papers for Nice and Nice 2 models so you can have a look and see if you can disprove the theory.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7041/full/nature03676.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/152/pdf

[Robittybob1]

 

I'd phrase it differently: "In this thread Robittybob1 has gone mad and decided that DDE has major effects on dust clearing"

 

 

You can try and prove that methodology and simulations are incorrect or find some actual recorded scientific fact that doesn't fit in the model. Below are links to research papers for Nice and Nice 2 models so you can have a look and see if you can disprove the theory.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7041/full/nature03676.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/152/pdf

I only said that since Mordred said we had uncovered a positive effect. That is how I read his comment, I could be wrong for our communication is a little rough on the forum.

But all in all even though you crucify me you mean well, for the advancement of science at least, and you definitely made me smile when I read "In this thread Robittybob1 has gone mad and decided that DDE has major effects on dust clearing".

I nearly gave you a plus 1 just for that! I must be mad! What the Hell.

[pavelcherepan]

That's what Mordred really said:

 

 

 

DDE and Poynting vector would be minor players to the hydrodynamic influence. They may have influence but it's small comparatively.

Edited February 23, 2016 by pavelcherepan

[Robittybob1]

That's what Mordred really said:

 

No, it was something better than that. Yesterday wasn't it? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93429-what-dates-are-accepted-for-the-age-of-the-sun/page-8#entry907444

 

I have no problem with that, nor did I state there isn't an influence. We showed that there is.

[pavelcherepan]

Yes, there should be, but these are not major players.

 

When you try to model something you first take major contributors and then fine-tune the model with minor ones. Instead, what you're trying to do is to understand gas migration using only the minor contributors without even trying to understand the main cause. This is a wrong way to look at a problem and you're not going to get any meaningful result this way.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, there should be, but these are not major players.

 

When you try to model something you first take major contributors and then fine-tune the model with minor ones. Instead, what you're trying to do is to understand gas migration using only the minor contributors without even trying to understand the main cause. This is a wrong way to look at a problem and you're not going to get any meaningful result this way.

All I wanted was for Mordred to take me through the steps in the one and only science paper that actually gave formulas for the DDE but we didn't, instead we took another route.

[Mordred]

All I wanted was for Mordred to take me through the steps in the one and only science paper that actually gave formulas for the DDE but we didn't, instead we took another route.

 

actually I gave you the formulas to understand DDE, including the steps. That was the discussion on redshift conversions. Every step you need to calculate DDE (Newtonian sense) from Luminosity is covered in this thread.

On PR the only step missing is Mie scattering.

 

 

As far as the hydrodynamic and magnetosphere I'm still working on a way to properly cover those and simplify at the same time.

 

Granted I'm assuming you know angular momentum, vs orbits of you don't I'd advise a different thread.

 

I can't teach all the physics involved. That's an unreasonable expectation. I can provide direction.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Mordred

[Robittybob1]

Sounds good. I hadn't heard from you yesterday so I wasn't sure whether we were still working on this together.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Robittybob1

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Robittybob1,

 

If you have time to post on this forum multiple times every day, you have time to read a few articles and learn some physics. You cannot expect people here to do everything for you. Moreover, if your obstinance on this matter continues, this thread will be closed.